Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

Old Europe says that some of the warming might be from solar influences and some of the warming might be man made.

It has been shown by Professor Lomborg ( and replicated by me on this thread which people like you refuse to read because you can't respond to it) that indeed Solar Influence may be a small part of the warming while the larger part may be from man made influences.

Strike One for Old Europe.

Old Europe says that the other part of the global warming might be man made

But neither Old Europe or Mr.Parados gives us the part that might be made made in statistical form.

What is the warming caused by man made activities,Old Europe?

What caused the warming trend before 1945 Old Europe?

Why were the Vikings able to farm Greenland and Iceland in 700 and 800 AD when the temperature was at least 1 C higher ?

If Old Europe cannot answer this-STRIKE TWO.


When people object to studies reported on in detail and laid out on these threads, if they think that the studies are not definitive, they are obliged to show why not or present other studies.If they don't, as Old Europe has not done.

Strike Three-for Old Europe.

Okie_ I am sure that Mr. Parados, because he is frightened, cannot handle the material below. He also cannot show it is in error.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Thomas said that Dr Lomborg generally agreed with the IPCC findings although he had some criticisms of them.

I posted the following,which Mr. Thomas may have missed to show that indeed, Dr. Lomborg did generally agree with the IPCC findings but did have some criticisms of them.

QUOTE FROM LOMBORG --p. 322

Do we want to handle alleged global warming in the most efficient way or do we want to use global warming as a stepping stone to other political projects...We should not spend vast amounts of money to cut a tiny slice of the global temperature increase there may be when this constitutes a poor use of resources and when we could probably use these funds far more efficiently in the developing world...THE KYOTO PROTOCOL WILL COST AT LEAST 150 BILLION A YEAR AND POSSIBLY MUCH MORE. UNICEF ESTIMATES THAT JUST 70-80 BILLION A YEAR COULD GIVE ALL THIRD WORLD INHABITANTS ACCESS TO THE BASICS LIKE HEALTH, EDUCATION, WATER AND SANITATION...Cutting back any CO2 emissions quickly becomes very costly, and easily counterproductive. We should focus more of our effort at finding ways of easing the emission of greenhouse gases OVER THE LONG RUN. Partly, this means that we need to invest much more in research and development of SOLAR POWER, FUSION, AND OTHER LIKELY POWER SOURCES OF THE FUTURE."


end of quote

I am sure that Mr.Thomas and anyone else reading this will understand that in his conclusion to the chapter of Global Warming, Dr. Lomber tells us that if we feel that Co2 MAY be accruing at a rate which may cause some difficulties down the road. we will have to make choices very carefully.( I hope you are reading this, GeorgeOB 1) .


That may be what Mr. Thomas means when he says that Dr.Lomborg generally agrees with the IPCC but is critical of some of their findings.

No. I do not think a few years are enough to base any conclusion. I want to see more data. Only 30 years or so ago, an impending ice age was predicted. This is no different. Not time to panic. The change in temperature is miniscule. Looks huge on a graph wherein 1 tenth of degree is magnified to look huge, but calm down, this is no crisis. Even if it were, Kyoto would accomplish nothing.

Okie- Because Old Europe are unable to meet the evidence below, they will not address it. Here it is>


When the committee published that verdict, it did not contain a single example of Lomborg's alleged scientific dishonesty. Lomborg then asked it to name such examples, and the committee preferred to withdraw the verdict rather than reopen the case. All of this can be looked up in the Wikipedia entry on Lomborg, under "accusations of scientific dishonesty".

If you must bring up this old hat again, at least bring up all of it. You're usually less gullible than this.
*********************************************************

That shoots down Mr. Parados who is trying to shoot the messenger.

What Mr. Parados does not know( he did not read the book--I did) is that Professor LOMBORG does not make up his statistics. He posts from Scientific Articles.

If Mr. Parados knew anything about the book and had read it, he would find that Professor Lomborg writes a section and gives FOOTNOTES FROM SCIENTIFIC ARTICLES.

I will give an example---quote from P. 263


The Climate, 1856-2100

The development in the instrumental global temperature record from is shown in Figure135.

(The chart on the page gives a chart NOT MADE UP BY LOMBORG AS MR. PARADOS WOULD HAVE IT BUT A CHART FROM

Jones, New, Martin, Parker and Rigor "Surface Air Temperatures and its changes over the past 150 years" Review of Geophysics 37(2):173-99)

(quote from page continued)

On the whole the temperature since then has increased by 0.4-0.8 C--FOOTNOTE 2147 --IPCC 2001a:2.2.3.3

Closer inspection reveals that all of the twentieth century's temperature increase has occurred abruptly within two time periods, from 1910 to 1948 and from 1975 to today."FOOTNOTE 2148--Barnett et al--"Detection and Attribution of recent Climate Change- A status report" Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 80(12):2.631-60.

THIS IS THE END OF THE QUOTE FROM THE PAGE 263 IN PROFESSOR LOMBERG'S BOOK. I make the following observations and then would ask anyone to comment on them.

l. After Mr. Thomas's posts on the findings about Lomborg's book, it is clear that it is a book accepted by the Scientific Community

2. I have replicated quite a few pages from Professor Lomborg's book. Mr. Parados chooses to denigrate Professor Lomborg. I am sure that he has not read the book because if he had he would find that 90 % of the book is HEAVILY FOOTNOTED.

3. These footnotes lead to SCIENTIFIC JOURNAL ARTICLES WHICH ARE SURELY PEER EVALUATED. If Mr. Parados had read my posts carefully, he would have found that almost all the material which I quoted from Professor Lomborg DID NOT, I REPEAT DID NOT, come from Professor Lomberg but rather from SCIENTIFIC PEER APPROVED JOURNALS.

4. If Mr.Parados claims that some of these findings are "old" all he has to do is to CAREFULLY take the "OLD" finding and show Scientific Journals or Reports which show that the finding is no longer applicable. HE DID NOT DO THIS WITH REGARD TO 80% OF THE MATERIAL I POSTED FROM DR. LOMBERG.


Perhaps, Mr. Parados should try to get a copy of this book. It might open his eyes.

Here, Okie, is Mr. Thomas' depiction of the attack on Professor Lomborg's book.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And with that, here is my take on the last page of this thread.


January 2003: A scientific monkey trial finds Lomborg's book guilty of "objective scientific dishonesty". It makes all kinds of accusations, but does not quote any specific citation from the book -- not even one! -- to back up any of its accusations.

February 2003: Lomborg files a complaint.

Early December 2003: Having examined the matter, the Danish ministry of science expounds the many ways in which the trial was of the monkey nature. It resubmits Lomborg's case for a real trial.

Late December 2003: Challenged to put up or shut up, the agency who conducted the monkey trial decides to shut up, but only after throwing a few more barbs in Lomborg's direction.

July 2006: Parados notes that a committee found Lomborg's book guilty of scientific dishonesty. He does not, however, note the monkey nature of the committee, and the fact-depleted reasoning it employed to reach its conclusions.

I stand by my opinion that this is below your usual standard, Parados.

Well, if you have your mind set on playing the joker here I really cannot prevent you from doing so.

However, I can point out that I presented other data/material/studies. Just on the previous page, actually. I'm sorry if that went right over your head.

Over...under...beside...through...now here's a case where trajectory seems to have no consequence whatsoever.

Okie-Note Mr. Parados's comment on this post. His source agrees that there is indeed a correlation and that the statistical significance is low.

THERE IS A CORRELATION AND THE STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE IS LOW!!

That means, of course, Okie, that Mr. Parados AGREES that there is some Solar Effect( he, significantly does not tell us how much) on the alleged global warming caused by man made activities( Mr. PARADOS DOES NOT TELL US HOW MUCH WARMING HAS BEEN CAUSED AND DOES NOT TELL US HOW MUCH WARMING CAUSED BY MAN MADE ACTIVITIES IS LEFT WHEN THE SOLAR EFFECTS ARE SUBTRACTED).

---------v--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Parados wrote:


We have presented a re-evaluation of the hypothesis
of possible links between solar activity and low clouds. Due
to a falling correlation between IR-low cloud cover and
cosmic rays after 1993, we conclude that even though the
two series are rather well correlated, the statistical significance
is low.

end of quote

Mr. Parados does not tell us how low the statistical significance is. THERE IS A CORRELATION. No one is saying that the links between solar activity and low clouds would WIPE OUT the effects of CO2. But if all of the factors which must be considered are put into the equation, the increases in temperature which is DUE ONLY TO CO2 EMISSIONS MUST BE LOWERED. ---------------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks. That's at least a definite answer. And it illustrates nicely that you are entirely capable of ignoring reality when it doesn't support your beliefs.

I looked at your data.Old Europe. I am very much afraid that you don't know very much about Global Warming. You admitted that Global Warming may have been influenced at least a bit by Solar Acitivity. There is no study which claims that Solar Activity is not involved in Global Warming.

If you read( you can read, I hope) my question to you, I specifically asked you to state the Global Warming growth due to Man Made Activities and the Global Warming Growth due to Solar influences and see if you can come to the conclusion that the global warming growth due to man made activities would be less.

I also posed some other questions to you which you are obviously unable to answer.

I will attempt to show you that while you and Mr> Parados beat the drum on Solar Warming, both of you are far far far away from defining the global warming problem.

Here is what Mr. Parados wrote:

Updated research okie shows that the correlation that occured for hundreds of years is no longer there. Warming is occurring that can't be explained by solar activity alone.
******************************
Of course, Mr. Parados evidently has trouble when reading scientific material. He will not find any post of mine or I believe Okie's which said that warming is NOT occuring that can be explained by solar activitity alone.

If he had read my posts on the subject he would know that. I fear that he cannot understand them.

Solar Activity is probably a small part of the global warming. The rest may indeed be due to man made effects. But how much warming is there?
What will the warming be in future years? How do we know? Is this warming part of climatological cycles? If we choose to attack global warming shall we lean on the Kyoto Protocol? What will this do? Has the Kyoto report even been followed by the European Countries that insisted it be put into place? What would following the Kyoto Protocol cost us? and most important of all- IS THE WARMING THAT HAS OCCURRED SOMETHING THAT WILL ACTUALLY FLOOD THE WORLD AND BRING THE SAHARA DESERT TO CANADA?

Doctor Lomborg says no, Brings evidence from the IPCC to show that the answer is No and, since Mr. Thomas has shown evidence that Professor Lomborg's thesis is quite acceptable, I must, regretfully for Mr. Parados and Mr.Old Europe, continue to give evidence from that source.

Mr. Old Europe wrote:

And you will probably agree with scientists saying that a part of the global warming might be caused by solar activity. The question is, will you agree with them that the other part of the global warming might be manmade?


Don't you know how to read? Of course, the other part of the global warming might be manmade. The problem with your presentation, Mr.Old Europe is that you are afraid or unable to give evidence to show what the other part of the global warming is manmade(AFTER YOU SUBTRACT THE SOLAR EFFECTS THAT IS).

Instead of the usual blah blah, Mr.Old Europe, give some evidence of what happened temperture wise and what will happen ACCORDING TO COMPUTER MODELS INTO WHICH ASSUMPTIONS ARE FED.

If you can't do that, you have no case at all since you are talking in useless generalities>

Thank you, Blatham and Old Europe. Summarized nicely. There really is nothing further to be said on those particular points.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Old Europe wrote:

And you will probably agree with scientists saying that a part of the global warming might be caused by solar activity. The question is, will you agree with them that the other part of the global warming might be manmade?


Don't you know how to read? Of course, the other part of the global warming might be manmade. The problem with your presentation, Mr.Old Europe is that you are afraid or unable to give evidence to show what the other part of the global warming is manmade(AFTER YOU SUBTRACT THE SOLAR EFFECTS THAT IS).

Instead of the usual blah blah, Mr.Old Europe, give some evidence of what happened temperture wise and what will happen ACCORDING TO COMPUTER MODELS INTO WHICH ASSUMPTIONS ARE FED.

If you can't do that, you have no case at all since you are talking in useless generalities>

Here is what Mr. Parados wrote:

Updated research okie shows that the correlation that occured for hundreds of years is no longer there. Warming is occurring that can't be explained by solar activity alone.
******************************
Of course, Mr. Parados evidently has trouble when reading scientific material. He will not find any post of mine or I believe Okie's which said that warming is NOT occuring that can be explained by solar activitity alone.

If he had read my posts on the subject he would know that. I fear that he cannot understand them.

Solar Activity is probably a small part of the global warming. The rest may indeed be due to man made effects. But how much warming is there?
What will the warming be in future years? How do we know? Is this warming part of climatological cycles? If we choose to attack global warming shall we lean on the Kyoto Protocol? What will this do? Has the Kyoto report even been followed by the European Countries that insisted it be put into place? What would following the Kyoto Protocol cost us? and most important of all- IS THE WARMING THAT HAS OCCURRED SOMETHING THAT WILL ACTUALLY FLOOD THE WORLD AND BRING THE SAHARA DESERT TO CANADA?

Doctor Lomborg says no, Brings evidence from the IPCC to show that the answer is No and, since Mr. Thomas has shown evidence that Professor Lomborg's thesis is quite acceptable, I must, regretfully for Mr. Parados and Mr.Old Europe, continue to give evidence from that source.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Okie- Because Old Europe are unable to meet the evidence below, they will not address it. Here it is>


When the committee published that verdict, it did not contain a single example of Lomborg's alleged scientific dishonesty. Lomborg then asked it to name such examples, and the committee preferred to withdraw the verdict rather than reopen the case. All of this can be looked up in the Wikipedia entry on Lomborg, under "accusations of scientific dishonesty".

If you must bring up this old hat again, at least bring up all of it. You're usually less gullible than this.
*********************************************************

That shoots down Mr. Parados who is trying to shoot the messenger.

What Mr. Parados does not know( he did not read the book--I did) is that Professor LOMBORG does not make up his statistics. He posts from Scientific Articles.

If Mr. Parados knew anything about the book and had read it, he would find that Professor Lomborg writes a section and gives FOOTNOTES FROM SCIENTIFIC ARTICLES.

I will give an example---quote from P. 263


The Climate, 1856-2100

The development in the instrumental global temperature record from is shown in Figure135.

(The chart on the page gives a chart NOT MADE UP BY LOMBORG AS MR. PARADOS WOULD HAVE IT BUT A CHART FROM

Jones, New, Martin, Parker and Rigor "Surface Air Temperatures and its changes over the past 150 years" Review of Geophysics 37(2):173-99)

(quote from page continued)

On the whole the temperature since then has increased by 0.4-0.8 C--FOOTNOTE 2147 --IPCC 2001a:2.2.3.3

Closer inspection reveals that all of the twentieth century's temperature increase has occurred abruptly within two time periods, from 1910 to 1948 and from 1975 to today."FOOTNOTE 2148--Barnett et al--"Detection and Attribution of recent Climate Change- A status report" Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 80(12):2.631-60.

THIS IS THE END OF THE QUOTE FROM THE PAGE 263 IN PROFESSOR LOMBERG'S BOOK. I make the following observations and then would ask anyone to comment on them.

l. After Mr. Thomas's posts on the findings about Lomborg's book, it is clear that it is a book accepted by the Scientific Community

2. I have replicated quite a few pages from Professor Lomborg's book. Mr. Parados chooses to denigrate Professor Lomborg. I am sure that he has not read the book because if he had he would find that 90 % of the book is HEAVILY FOOTNOTED.

3. These footnotes lead to SCIENTIFIC JOURNAL ARTICLES WHICH ARE SURELY PEER EVALUATED. If Mr. Parados had read my posts carefully, he would have found that almost all the material which I quoted from Professor Lomborg DID NOT, I REPEAT DID NOT, come from Professor Lomberg but rather from SCIENTIFIC PEER APPROVED JOURNALS.

4. If Mr.Parados claims that some of these findings are "old" all he has to do is to CAREFULLY take the "OLD" finding and show Scientific Journals or Reports which show that the finding is no longer applicable. HE DID NOT DO THIS WITH REGARD TO 80% OF THE MATERIAL I POSTED FROM DR. LOMBERG.


Perhaps, Mr. Parados should try to get a copy of this book. It might open his eyes.

***********************************************************


Here, Okie, is Mr. Thomas' depiction of the attack on Professor Lomborg's book.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And with that, here is my take on the last page of this thread.


January 2003: A scientific monkey trial finds Lomborg's book guilty of "objective scientific dishonesty". It makes all kinds of accusations, but does not quote any specific citation from the book -- not even one! -- to back up any of its accusations.

February 2003: Lomborg files a complaint.

Early December 2003: Having examined the matter, the Danish ministry of science expounds the many ways in which the trial was of the monkey nature. It resubmits Lomborg's case for a real trial.

Late December 2003: Challenged to put up or shut up, the agency who conducted the monkey trial decides to shut up, but only after throwing a few more barbs in Lomborg's direction.

July 2006: Parados notes that a committee found Lomborg's book guilty of scientific dishonesty. He does not, however, note the monkey nature of the committee, and the fact-depleted reasoning it employed to reach its conclusions.

I stand by my opinion that this is below your usual standard, Parados.

I believe that I posted an article somewhere a while back that England is also looking to some form of grass.

http://news.com.com/2102-11389_3-6092888.html?tag=st.util.print

"Report: Forget fueling cars on corn or soybeans

By Michael Kanellos
http://news.com.com/Report+Forget+fueling+cars+on+corn+or+soybeans/2100-11389_3-6092888.html

Story last modified Tue Jul 11 16:31:29 PDT 2006


Ethanol from corn and soybean biodiesel aren't going to solve the energy crunch, according to a new report from the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Even if all of the corn produced in the U.S. last year were used to make ethanol, it would quench only 12 percent of the country's gas thirst, the report said. If the soybean crop were consumed as fuel, it would displace only 9 percent of the country's demand for diesel. Any appreciable upsurge in the use of those plants for fuel would also cut into the U.S. food supply.

The report, however, isn't dour about the potential use of biofuels. Instead, it advocates trying to develop high-cellulose plants that can produce higher levels of fuel, such as switchgrass, an approach that's been advocated by other scientists.

Switchgrass and similar plants have the potential to produce more energy than equivalent amounts of crops like corn that have been bred for food. Additionally, high-cellulose plants don't need fertilization and, because they are inedible, their use wouldn't affect food supplies.

These fuel plant crops also don't need much water and, conceivably, could be grown on land too dry for food crops. Like corn ethanol or soybean diesel, fuel made from these plants would result in lower tailpipe emissions than standard car gas. Synthetically produced fuels could also displace regular gas over time, the report stated.

Contrary to other recent studies, the report also found that both corn ethanol and soybean biodiesel supply more energy than is consumed in producing them. Corn ethanol delivers 25 percent more energy, while soybean diesel gives off 93 percent more energy than is required to harvest the crop and process the plants.

News of the report was first covered in the journal Nature. "

I think that would be a great idea, Mr. Sumac. It would parallel the suggestion made by Dr. Lomborg on P. 3222 of his book that we

"need to invest much more in research and development of solar power, fusion and OTHER LIKELY POWER SOURCES OF THE FUTURE"

but he also says, Mr. Sumac, that:

P. 322

"We should not spend vast amounts of money to cut a tiny slice of the global temperature increase when this constitutes a poor use of resources and when we could probalby use these funds far more effectively in the developingworld....UNICEF estimates that 70-80 BillionDollars a year could give all Third World Inhabitants access to the basics like health education, water and sanitation, while the Kyoto Protocol( which,, incidentally is NOT being adhered to by most of its signatories) would cost at least 150 Billion a year"

Your suggestions are positive, Mr. Sumac. I think that they will take some time to put into place and I do hope that they can be viable by at least 2020. Inasmuch as there probably will not be world flooding and the change of Canada into the Sahara Desert because of miniscule Global Warming which may very well ALSO be part of a natural warming cycle, we can wait and also put into play the excellent suggestions made by Professor Lomborg above.

Well, they still compete for farmland and farmers with the edible plants that provide the food supply. But other than that, I like the idea.

So reality is to accept theory that is far from being proven? To each his own. I simply do not choose to jump through a dozen hoops and assumptions to swallow a political agenda driving questionable science. We will just have to disagee, and hopefully the next 5, 10, or 20 years may give better indications of what is truly going on with this issue.

Bottom line, I've always been in favor of looking at other alternative economically feasible energy sources. As an example, I have been consistent in that I have been in favor of more nuclear energy production from day 1, while environmentalists jumped on other bandwagons, including more fossil fuel sources instead of nuclear. Environmentalists cannot have it both ways. They need to be realistic, and I have never seen them to be very realistic about much of anything.